Scientists find a more fundamental barrier in trying to go behind the Big Bang. Who or what put that singularity there to burst into the known universe? Scientists who wish to speculate using known conceptions of universal physical principles often choose to ignore the theological explanation that God created everything out of nothing. They then develop their own theories. Paul Davies, professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, has classified scientist's ideas about beginnings into eight categories:

1. The Absurd Universe
2. The Unique Universe
3. The Multiverse
4. Intelligent Design
5. The Life Principle
6. The Self-Explaining Universe
7. The Fake Universe
8. None of the Above

Let's take these in order:

The Absurd Universe: This says essentially that everything that has happened and will happen has come about by chance; there is no God, no destiny. It is useless to look for an organizing principle; man, for instance, is an accident with no meaning. A number of scientists take this view. It simplifies their life as it allows them to continue to investigate their little corner without worrying about larger implications. Actually, this view is not just anti-religious but also anti-scientific. To quote Paul Davies: "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way." So, Aha! Most scientists, not just religionists, proceed on an as yet unproven (scientifically) article of faith. Which leads us to:

The Unique Universe: The exact opposite of the Absurd, this idea proposes that there is an underlying, but as yet undiscovered, unity in physics that will eventually explain everything. The quest for this "Theory of Everything" started with Einstein, who of course never succeeded. Neither has anyone else so far. Until someone comes up with a plausible theory that can be tested by observations, consideration of this idea is stymied. Some scientists despair of success. Let's look at other theories.

The Multiverse: For some, this idea arises out of the observable fact that our universe is so constituted as to be friendly to life. If one or more of the physical constants uncovered by science, such as the speed of light or the force of gravity, were materially different, life would be impossible. If you are religious, you say: "Of course, God planned it that way!" Scientists who want to reject the supernatural have come up with the idea, that we inhabit only one universe of many, perhaps an infinite number. Some of the "other" universes have different constants and therefore no life. This idea may seem to iron out the conundrum of why the constants we observe are what they are, but it is not subject to scientific test. We are stuck in our own universe and unable to travel or send a robot agent to other universes. The multiverse idea fails to meet the criterion of a good scientific theory: That it be testable by making observations.

Intelligent Design: I don't like Davies' term for this because it smacks of the idea that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the complexity of life. What he means, however, is that a planner with goals in mind got it all started. That is, God did it. As he points out, if you buy the idea of God, then further discussion of origins is closed off. Scientific tests of God's existence are of course not possible, but great minds over thousands of years have found reasons more than the nature of the natural world to believe in God.

Page 5
Next Page

Page 1 • Page 2 • Page 3 • Page 4 • Page 5 • Page 6 • Page 7